Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

There is a need to bring methods to bear on public problems that are inclusive, analytic, and quick. This paper describes the efforts of three pairs of academics working from three different though complementary theoretical foundations and intervention backgrounds (ie ways of working) who set out together to meet this challenge. Each of the three pairs had conducted dozens of interventions that had been regarded as successful or very successful by the client groups in dealing with complex policy and strategic problems. One approach focused on leadership issues and stakeholders, another on negotiating competitive strategic intent with attention to stakeholder responses, and the third on analysis of feedback ramifications in developing policies. This paper describes the 10-year longitudinal research project designed to address the above challenge. The important outcomes are reported: the requisite elements of a general integrated approach and the enduring puzzles and tensions that arose from seeking to design a wide-ranging multi-method approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F and Eden C (1994). Issues in computer and non-computer supported GDSSs. Int J Decis Supp Syst 12: 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F and Eden C (2001). Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making. Group Decis Negotiat 10: 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C and Williams T (1997). Modeling for litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27: 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C and Brown I (2005a). The Practice of Making Strategy. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Franco LA, Gallupe B and Parent M (2005b). GSS for multi-organizational collaboration: Reflections on process and content. Group Decis Negotiat 14: 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF, Bryson JM, Richardson GP, Ackermann F, Eden C and Finn CB (2006). Integrating modes of systems thinking into strategic planning education and practice: The Thinking Person's Institute approach. J Publ Affairs Educ 12: 265–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF and Richardson GP (1980). Toward a pedagogy of system dynamics. TIMS Stud Mngt Sci 14: 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF and Richardson GP (1997). Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13: 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF, Richardson GP and Vennix JAM (1997). Group model building: Adding more science to the craft. Syst Dyn Rev 13: 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C and Schon DA (1974). Theories in Practice. Jossey Bass: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C and Schon DA (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach EA (2004). Practical Guide for Policy Analysis, 2nd edn., Congressional Quarterly Press: Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn RD and Vaupel JW (1982). Quick Analysis for Busy Decision Makers. Basic Books: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL and Luckmann T (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blenkin GM and Kelly AV (2001). Action Research for Professional Development. Paul Chapman: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM (2003). Strategic planning and management. In: Peters B.G. and Pierre J. (eds). Handbook of Public Administration. Sage: London, pp. 38–47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, 3rd edn.. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM and Finn CB (1995). Creating the future together: Developing and using shared strategy maps. In: Halachmi A. and Bouckaert G. (eds). The Enduring Challenges in Public Management. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, pp. 247–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Cunningham GL and Lokkesmoe KJ (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Admin Rev 62: 568–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C and Finn C (2004). Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Holwell S (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. Syst Pract 11: 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby BC and Bryson JM (2005). Leadership for the Common Good, 2nd edn.. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1990). The unfolding nature of group decision support. In: Eden C. and Radford J. (eds). Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. Sage: London, pp. 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2000). Mapping distinctive competencies: A systemic approach. J Opl Res Soc 51: 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2001a). Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis Negotiat 10: 119–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2001b). A mapping framework for strategy making. In: Huff A. and Jenkins M. (eds). Mapping Strategy. Wiley: London, pp. 173–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Huxham C (1996). Action research for the study of organizations. In: Clegg S., Hardy C. and Nord W. (eds). Handbook of Organization Studies. Sage: Beverly Hills, pp. 526–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Jones S, Sims D and Smithin T (1981). The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjectivity. J Mngt Stud 18: 37–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989). Building theories from case study research. Acad Mngt Rev 14: 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn C (1996). Utilizing stakeholder strategies for positive collaboration. In: Huxham C. (ed). Creating Collaborative Advantage. Sage: London, pp. 152–164.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, C (1997). Stakeholder analysis. PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde: Glasgow, Scotland.

  • Forrester J (1969). Urban Dynamics. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holman P and Devane T (1999). The Change Handbook. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howick S, Ackermann F and Andersen D (2006). Linking event thinking with structural thinking: Methods to improve client value in projects. Syst Dyn Rev 22: 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howick S, Eden C, Ackermann F and Williams T (2007). Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: The modelling cascade. Eur J Opl Res 186: 1068–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham C and Cropper S (1994). From many to one—and back: An exploration of some components of facilitation. Omega 22: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham C and Vangen S (2005). Managing to Collaborate. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1972). Victims of Group Think. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim WC and Mauborgne RA (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making. Org Sci 6: 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb DA (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling PM (1989). The Design of Strategy Support Systems, Advances in Support Systems Research. I.A.S.: Windsor, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J and Brocklesby J (1997). Multi-methodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25: 489–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff II and Featheringham TR (1974). On systemic problem solving and the error of the third kind. Behav Sci 19: 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft J (1984). Strategy support models. Strat Mngt J 5: 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro I and Mingers J (2002). The use of multimethodology in practice—Results of a survey of practioners. J Opl Res Soc 53: 369–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew A (1977). Strategy formulation as a political process. Int Stud Mngt Org 7: 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew A, Whittington R, Melin L, Sanchez-Runde, Van den Bosch, Ruitgrok and Numagami (2003). Innovative Forms of Organizing. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD (1984). A theory of requisite decision models. Acta Psychol 56: 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips R (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson G (1991). Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson G and Pugh III AL (1981). Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling. Productivity Press: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger DM, Sandberg WR and Rechner PL (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Acad Mngt J 32: 745–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1992). The Fifth Discipline. Doubleday: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Irwin McGraw-Hill: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren KD (2002). Competitive Strategy Dynamics. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimar D and Vining A (2004). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 4th edn.. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A (1979). Speaking Truth to Power. Little, Brown: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolstenholme EF and Coyle RG (1983). The development of system dynamics as a methodology for system description and qualitative analysis. J Opl Res Soc 34: 569–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagonel AA (2002). Model conceptualization in group model building: A review of the literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating a social order. In: Davidson P.I., Mollona E., Diker V.G., Langer R.S. and Rowe J.I. (eds). Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Palermo, Italy, The System Dynamics Society: Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagonel AA (2003). Using group model building to inform welfare reform policy-making in New York State: A critical look. In: Eherlein R.L., Diker V.G., Langer R.S. and Rowe J.I. (eds). Proceedings of the 21st International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. New York City, USA, The System Dynamics Society: Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagonel AA (2004). Developing an interpretive dialogue for group model building. In: Kennedy M., Winch G.W., Langer R.S., Rowe J.I. and Yanni J.M. (eds). 22nd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Oxford, England, The System Dynamics Society: Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahn EKO and Greschner J (1993). Model-based planning for strategic management: An integrated simulation and learning toolkit. In: Zepeda E. and Machuca J.A.D. (eds). International System Dynamics Conference. Cancun, Mexico, System Dynamics Society: Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

    C Eden & F Ackermann

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    J M Bryson

  3. University of Albany, State University of New York, USA

    G P Richardson & D F Andersen

  4. College of Saint Rose, Albany, NY, USA

    C B Finn

Authors
  1. C Eden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F Ackermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J M Bryson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G P Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D F Andersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C B Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C Eden.

Additional information

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Group Decision and Negotiation Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany, 25–26 June 2006; the Sino-American Conference on Public Administration, Beijing, P. R. China, 8–9 June, 2006; and the Annual Conference of the International Public Management Research Association, Glasgow, Scotland, 10–12 April, 2006.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Bryson, J. et al. Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas. J Oper Res Soc 60, 2–13 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602575

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602575

Keywords

Search

Navigation